The beginning (of the universe) for beginners

This video – The beginning of the universe, for beginners – is the premiere of a series of five, first of their kind, collaborations between CERN and TED Ed. The series covers the origins of the universe, dark matter, antimatter, big data and the Higgs boson. The other four animations will premiere at TEDxCERN, another first of its kind event, on 3 May from 2pm – 8pm CEST, and the animated lessons will be available on ed.ted.com starting on 3 May. The webcast will be available to the public on the TEDxCERN website.

19 Responses to “The beginning (of the universe) for beginners”

Yeah well for those of you who like fairy tales this is a good one. The big bang is pretty dam ridiculous, when you think about it. But like anything that comes from the patent clerks mouth it is believed as gospel, especially when it comes to denying the spot light to anyone else who comes up with anything better. Halton Arps work with quasars was so good he was denied telescope time because his findings with the red shift factor (which is a strong proponent of the BBT), contradicts the gravity based hypothesis.
Anyway anyone who wants evidence here it ishttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c9M33FLH40

The big bang is a fantasy and those in the science world that disagree with it, are effectively silenced.
The Big Bang is an irrational process that cannot be described in scientific terms … nor challenged by an appeal to observation.
—Hoyle
Fred Hoyle

Ken “There is something radically wrong with the thinking of a person who claims that an alternative view is “silenced” and, as proof, quotes someone with that alternative view who is clearly not silenced!”
It is only from the freedom of the internet that I am able to find this information. Had there been no internet these opinions would not be known in the science world, effectively silenced.
There is nothing wrong with my thinking Ken but there maybe something wrong with yours if you believe the universe started with a bang.

You must be a really late developer, Derek. Fred Hoyle’s views on Big Bang hypotheses were well know before the Internet even existed. They were expressed as part of the debate at the time and Fred was actually responsible for the name “Big Bang.” – really weird to think that is proof of a view being silenced.

I’m forming a hypothesis that Derek actually can’t read. This would explain his almost total reliance on youtube clips as evidence, and fundamental misunderstanding of text-based material when he does reference it.

Ken – Interesting you picked up on Fred Hoyle who said that the big bang was Pseudoscience, he also formulated the theory for stellar nucleosynthesis. Apparently his views were published in science literature at the time. Looks like I missed this. Good to see you guys picked up my mistake. But sadly no mention of Halton Arps work, you say nothing about the treatment of him for his work with Quasars and red shift and the subsequent banning of telescope time in the Unites states. No recognition what so ever.

Alison – It looks like you can’t read because I never did say that the big bang was patentable. The reference to the patent clerk was a reference to Einstien as he was the one who picked up on “Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître” story and trumpeted it to the masses. Once again good to see you picked up my mistake with Fred Hoyles work. But sadly no recognition again of Halton Arp and his work with quasars and the red shift controversy.

I am actually quite ashamed to think the big bang is being called science and is being told to our kids. Funding is the issue here and the astrophysicists who are still in the club support this, every time they get shown up they invent a new hypothetical scenario.
Hence we have all this rubbish that is still unproven, inflation, black holes, dark energy, dark matter. There is no evidence for any of this that stands up to the laborious standards that science sets on other subjects, this hypothesis just seems to go around that.
For those who want to read a good web page on the busting of this myth, please go tohttp://rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

No I feel ashamed that the barriers of science have been lowered in order to accept the notions of this hypothesis ( I don’t call it a theory because I believe it does not live up to the parameters of a theory).
I am feel ashamed that we allow this kind of pseudoscience in our schools.
A man of your reputation Ken should watch what he supports, because this hypothesis is almost religious. Thanks once again for the personal attacks and no reference to the information I am providing.

I feel shamed that we as a group promote this, personally I feel sorry for the people who believe it is good science.
I am glad I have had nothing to do with this science as the methodology of this hypothesis is quite ridiculous, if one studies the timeline of events developing this hypothesis.
So thanks for the English lesson, but so sad you had nothing good to say about the web page of 33 top scientists, with objections to the big bang and the relevance funding has had with the promotion of this ridiculousness. Or the relevance Halton Arps work has had with the implications to redshift and his subsequent ban from the telescope in the united states because of conflicts with the BB. Or anything good to say about plasma cosmology which makes a lot more sense as it studies active galactic physical phenomenon, rather than promotion of outlandish ideas.

Funny how so many scientists obviously don’t look at the science of cosmology with the same strict science that they may use for lets say molecular biology.
Funny how so many scientists take a religious view when it comes to the “beginning of the universe”. To have the audacity to even suggest they know when the universe began is totally unscientific and borders on religious. I find it amazing to think some scientists think something as infinite (because so far it is, in space and time) as the universe was squeezed into a singularity, it should be a comedy (thats right it is The Big Bang Theory). The singularity concept belongs to the expansionist hypothesis which is closely tied to red shift. It is also funny how when one man found red shift to be dissimilar to the doppler effect, his voice was silenced and in the name of dogma, was banned from using the telescope and his voice was silenced.
The work with quasars and their role in forming active galaxies seems a lot more probable than a BB.
“In the late 1950’s when the prestigious Armenian astronomer, Viktor Ambarzumian was president of the International Astronomical Union he said that just looking at pictures convinced him that new galaxies were ejected out of old. Even now astronomers refuse to discuss it, saying that big galaxies cannot come out of other big galaxies.”http://www.haltonarp.com/articles

Ha ha yeah just block the freedom of speech.
Makes me wonder why this is taught in schools and not plasma cosmology, no lets just have a one sided view !
In the name of true science let all voices be heard !

“Ha ha yeah just block the freedom of speech.”
As we’re repeatedly pointed out to you, Derek, absolutely nothing is stopping you from setting up your own blog. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
However, other bloggers do have the right to block people who constantly keep trying to derail a thread to push their own idiosyncratic point of view. They are not blocking your freedom of speech; they are just suggesting that you make your own soapbox.

Sciblogs Archive

Sciblogs is the biggest blog network of scientists in New Zealand, an online forum for discussion of everything from clinical health to climate change. Our Scibloggers are either practising scientists or have been writing on science-related issues for some time. They welcome your feedback!

Sciblogs was created by the Science Media Centre and is independently funded